Roughly 150 million years ago, birds began to evolve. The winged creatures we see in the skies today descended from a group of dinosaurs called theropods, which included tyrannosaurs, during a 54-million-year chunk of time known as the Jurassic period. Why the ability to fly evolved in some species is a difficult question to answer, but scientists agree that wings came to be because they must have been useful: they might have helped land-based animals leap into the air, or helped gliding creatures who flapped their arms produce thrust.

As researchers continue to probe the origin of flight, studies of fossils have shown that theropodsparticularly coelurosaurian dinosaurs, which closely resemble modern birdshad large feathers on both their fore limbs and hind limbs. However, extensive evidence for these leg feathers didnt exist in the earliest birds. But now, a new examination of fossils reported today in the journal Science reveals several examples of this four-winged anatomy in modern birds oldest common ancestors.

Modern birds have two types of feathers: vaned feathers that cover the outside of the body, and the down feathers that grow underneath them.

but that does not compute: we know sexual selection is largely determined by competition which implies choice propelled by desire to pass along their own genes. this is brought abt by passing along the fittest (expression) genes in the next generation and its all instintctual; so in that way they do actually recognize sucesssful genes when they see them expressed.

Some scientists, quite a few actually, say those are not feathers but another substance. At any rate I refuse to believe that dinos grew wings simply because they waved their arms in the air while catching bugs, which is the theory that some scientists put forth to explain the growth of wings and feathers.

If Dinos were going to evolve into birds don't you think the logical candidate for this would have been the Pterodactyl family? They could already fly and already had wings, yet the ground based two legged theropods are the ones scientists picked to be the "ancestors" of birds. BTW, I am not religious nor a young earther. I just use common sense when it comes to evolution, it is BS, and anyone with half a brain can see most of the theories are simply that, BS.

No evidence exits which actually proves evolution, or creation for that matter.

Some scientists, quite a few actually, say those are not feathers but another substance. At any rate I refuse to believe that dinos grew wings simply because they waved their arms in the air while catching bugs, which is the theory that some scientists put forth to explain the growth of wings and feathers.

If Dinos were going to evolve into birds don't you think the logical candidate for this would have been the Pterodactyl family? They could already fly and already had wings, yet the ground based two legged theropods are the ones scientists picked to be the "ancestors" of birds. BTW, I am not religious nor a young earther. I just use common sense when it comes to evolution, it is BS, and anyone with half a brain can see most of the theories are simply that, BS.

No evidence exits which actually proves evolution, or creation for that matter.

It isn't just about birds developing wings and feathers, it is about the whole respiratory system changing, how did that happen gradually over a period of millions of years and why? Nope, evolution doesn't hold up under scrutiny, and it doesn't take much scrutiny to tear it down. People who believe in it are just as naive as people who believe in religion and Gods.

Okay, sexual selection it is that you push aside. Seems integral to the whole theory to me. Natural selection directs will to survive as sexual selection drives the need to reproduce. Proper selection is vital for both, or they fail. You appear to be saying so long as one mate can find another of its kind any will do. But that is not what is observed in nature. It doesn't make sense on the face of it.

It has been suggested that the polyamorous chimps and bonobos employ promiscuity to promote group bonding- and if you think about it that should pretty well do it. When it comes actual reproduction purposes selection still applies. Alpha male and all that. This is my understanding but that is as far as it goes. I am not a scientist and have not studied primates. I have stayed at a Holiday Inn recently I should warn you, though.

I will be stcking with sexual selection as valid until overwhelming contridicting evidence presents...could happen but wont be holding my breath. Is there published work by someone who otherwise agrees with evolutionary theory but agrees with your position? Dont knock yourself out, but id like to give it a gander if it exists.

Disclaimer:
Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual
posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its
management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the
exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.